View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Enhancing employability
The contribution of an active interactions with society as integral part of the academic training
Approaches at Tilburg and Wageningen University
Kim van Geijn (TiU)
Tjeerd Jan Stomph (WU)
Set-up of this workshop
Brief introduction of both approaches
Discussions on options for application to your own organisation and students
The Academic Consultancy Training (ACT)
course at Wageningen University
Tjeerd Jan Stomph
Wageningen University
Outline
ACT contribution to employability
Role in study programs
What and how
Why-educational philosophy
Ask questions as they arise
Employability?
End 1990’s employer feedback on WU graduates
● Well trained in subject matter and scientific skills
● Presentation and work related skills could be better
● Working in professional teams needed training
Over the years focus changed
● Presentation and meeting skills high school/BSc
● Disciplinary teams multi-disciplinary teams
● Disciplinary projects multi~ or transdisciplinary projects
The future?
● Solutions roadmaps for transformative change?
Role of ACT in MSc programs
Train in multidisciplinary team work based on disciplinary contribution and diversity
Train in professional self-~ and peer assessment
Train in advisory skills
In addition to:
Disciplinary courses (51 credits)
Research project (36 credits)
Academic internship (24 credits)(in research and development environment mostly)
ACT? What?
A query/concern/challenge
An advice
University students
Society
Society = commissioners
Business (43%)
Public sector (34%)
NGO's (16%)
Public-private cooperation (7%)
Society
Students = 26 of 32 MSc programs
University students
Environmental Sciences
Social Sciences
Technology
Biology
Animal & plant sciences
Food, Nutrition and Health
How? time-line
1 2 3 4 5 76 8weeks -2 -1-4 -3-6 -5-7-8
8 week course (252h/student)pre-register apply
8 week course (65h/team)
students
process coaches
8 week course (12h/team)
content coaches
plan
commissioners
submit projects Interaction with studentsappointments
How? Philosophy – praxis oriented approach
….our strenghts, our challenges ……
I
Subjectifiedor personal
We
Inter-subjectified
or social
…our tasks, our product….
It(s)
Objectified or factual
…..my skills, mindset, background…
Cross-boundary
Integration in Action
How Educational approach
Teams are highly independent
Roles of project manager, secretary and financial controller are assigned prior to team start
Teams are composed on the basis of applications
Project formulation is kept vague and open ended
Teams negotiate with commissioner and write their own project proposal before executing it
Students
Entrance requirements for students
Minimally 36 credits of their 120 MSc credits done
Preferably more credits including a written MSc thesis
Leaning outcomes
Skills to apply knowledge in an advisory setting and skills in engaging with societal stakeholders
Teaching staff
Requirements
Experienced teacher
Coach training
Research background in one of the Wageningen fields
Interested in projects beyond own discipline
Expectations
Coach rather than teach
Questioning rather than answering
Commissioners and projects
Requirements for projects
Needs input from different disciplines
Of an advisory nature
Should gain from an academic approach
Feasible within 8 weeks for teams of 5-7 students
External party interested to pay the project costs
Expectations from commissioners
Interested in getting an answer
Understand not all teams are equally good
QUESTIONS?
tjeerdjan.stomph@wur.nl
TiU Educationprofile
engaging
Understanding society
Outreaching Honors program
Need for Me we WE-leadership development
Emphasis on
● Selfdirected development
● Pracademic
● Standing on the shoulders of giants
● Learning by doing and experiencing
● ..
AWARE of, ABLE to and ACTIVE in a Outreaching worthy manner
me
we
WE
Conscious Competence Learning model
Aware, Able and Acting
Meta Consciouscompetence= advancing society= teaching others
Outreaching Honors program
CourseEARL
Internship(1+)
Olabs (2)
MC (8+)
Training
Coaching
Community projects
+
IST
SepJan
Aug Yr1
Kick Off:mindset
• Self directed• Building
community on winwin
Olab 1
EARLABI
CP
IndividualCoaching
IndividualCoaching
IndividualCoaching
Team coaching
Team coaching
MC MC MC MC
TrainingTraining Training Training Training Training
Training
Individualoutlook
midterm
endpresentation
ISTC
SepJan
Aug Yr2
Exchange (70%):Virtual
community
Olab 1
Portfolio appraisin
g
CP
IndividualCoaching
IndividualCoaching
IndividualCoaching
Team coaching
Team coaching
MC MC MC MC
midterm
endpresentation
What does it contribute to my career
readiness and employability?
Differences & similarities & challenges
Different solutions for same drive: (HO)SR-HRM (food for human capital)
● How to make the intangible tangible? And is measurability relevant?
● Do active interactions as integral part of the academic training contribute to society?
Regular vs honors education
Point of entry: Bachelor vs Master
Differences & similarities & challenges
Scale: Small, University wide, Cross University…
Internal organization, a.o. quality, funding ..
Carriers: 1.0 vs 2.0 vs network vs fluid transformational
Discussion
How – Educational approach
Merge
Instrumental education i.e. transferring expert knowledge, expert observations and possible solutions
Emancipatory education i.e. equipping students to use and experiment with the insights acquired to address together a real life issue and their personal development
Approaches to projects differ
More multi disciplinary (expert advice)
Propose a strategy to reduce food waste in
a catering company
Estimate the impact of climate change on
natural fibers production
More transdisciplinary (multi-stakeholder platform facilitation)
Develop a digital Eco-map with ecological
and sustainability oriented shops and
activities in a region
A query
An advice
A query
Options
Joint analysis
Demand
articulation
Questioning and
listening
How? time-line
1 2 3 4 5 76 8weeks -2 -1-4 -3-6 -5-7-8
8 week course (252h/student)pre-register apply
8 week course (65h/team)
students
process coaches
plan prepare
8 week course (12h/team)
content coaches
plan
trouble shooting
course coordination team
project acquisition assign
commissioners
submit projects Interaction with studentsappointments
How – course schedule
1
Support from process coach (personal and team coaching) and from academic advisor (content coaching of team)
Engaging in discussions with various academic and societal actors
2 3 4 5 76 8weeks
Workshop Project Proposal Development
Submission Project Proposal Submission Final Outputs
& Presentation
Optional intermediate products & presentation
Workshops Personal & Team Development
Assessment elements
What
Expectation paper
Project proposal
Midterm reflection paper
Final reflection paper
Mutual assessment
Final product
Assessed by
Coach
PW teacher, Coach
Coach, CPD trainer
Coach
Fellow students
Advisor, coach,
commissioner
Responsibility
Individual
Team
Individual
Individual
Individual/team
Team
Grading
Project proposal: 15%
● 50% by coach, 50% by PW teacher
Product: 42.5%
● 50% expert, 25% coach, 25% commissioner
Team process: 10%
● 100% coach
Individual process (includes reflection papers): 32.5%
● 50% coach, 50% mutual assessment team
Assessment tools
Rubrics for personal assessment elements
● Related to the I, We and It domains
Rubrics for products
● Slight difference between academic advisors, commissioners and coaches
Item 0 6 10
Listening Not able to listen to contributions of others
Listens well and generally asks clarifying questions when needed
Able to use active listening whenever needed
Some numbers 2013/14 & 2014/15
950-1000 students
150-165 projects
75 different process coaches (unique persons)
100 content coaches
2 academic coordinators
4 period coordinators (5 educational periods)
1 financial supervisor
1 staff responsible for logistics
Commissioners’ comments
“Good quality in relation to the price.”
“I received an exploration that indicated exactly what I needed.”
“The project gave rise to a continuing discussion and gave ideas for solutions.”
“They answered my question, so I was satisfied. However, I had expected more from university students…”
Commissioners’ opinion
Student appreciation (n=264)
2 3 4 5
The multi-cultural aspect
Place of self-reflection
Communication with ACT-team
Communication with content coach
Time available for the product
The consultancy oriented character
Clarity of problem definition by thecommissioner
Communication with commisioner
Importance
Presence
Appreciation
About working in a team
Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups
Anita WilliamsWoolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alexander Pentland, Nada Hashmi, Thomas W.Malone
In two studies with 699 individuals working in groups of two to five, there was evidence of a general collective intelligence factor (the c-factor) that explained a group's performance on a wide variety of tasks.
Science 330, 686 (2010); DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147
About working in a team
This “c factor” was not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members ………..
………… but was correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of femalesin the group.
Recommended